transitioning to alternative vehicles and fuels: … - nas...transitioning to alternative vehicles...

Transitioning to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels:Vehicle technology assessment in the NAS report"

John German, ICCT!

April 25, 2013!

NAS Committee on Transitions to Alternative

Vehicles and Fuels"Overall report task and findings!

2

Statement of Task

•  Relative to 2005, how can on-road LDV fleet reduce"•  Petroleum use: 50% by 2030, 80% by 2050"•  GHG emissions: 80% by 2050"

•  Assess cost and performance of vehicle and fuel technology options that contribute to meeting the goals, and barriers that hinder their adoption"

•  Suggest policies to achieve the goals"•  Comment on Federal R&D programs"

3

Poten.al Pathways

•  Four pathways contribute to both goals"•  Highly efficient internal combustion vehicles (including

hybrids)"•  Vehicles operating on biofuels"•  Vehicles operating on electricity"•  Vehicles operating on hydrogen"

•  Natural gas vehicles reduce petroleum consumption but have limited impact on GHG emissions"•  Small amounts of leakage can offset CO2 benefits"

"Note: GHG benefits of biofuels, electricity and hydrogen depend on their being produced without large GHG emissions. This expands the need for controlling emissions beyond the transportation sector."

4

Key Findings

•  No pathway is adequate by itself to meet the goals; at least two and maybe more will be needed depending on technological and commercial success."

•  Improved efficiency is essential to the success of the other pathways."

•  The goals will be difficult but not impossible to meet if supported by strong national policies."

•  Even if the goals are not completely met, partial success can still yield valuable benefits."

5

Policy Sugges.ons

•  Strong and effective policies are required to achieve success with any scenario."

•  Policies must drive use of LDV technology advances in fuel economy and reducing GHG emissions as opposed to increased performance."

•  Policy must drive changes to non-petroleum fuel infrastructure to greatly reduce GHG emissions."

•  Uncertainty makes it impossible to know which technologies will be ultimately successful."

•  Therefore, policies must be broad, robust, and adaptive."

6

Committee Subgroups"

§  Vehicles"§  Fuels"§  Modeling"

This webinar will take a deep dive into the vehicle inputs and modeling.""For the full report, see:"http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18264"

7

NAS Committee 2050 Technology Assessment"

No existing data and models for 2050 – needed to create new techniques!

8

Overall Approach"

§  Assumed policies exist to drive technology development and implementation"

§  Two technology success pathways"§  Midrange: Committee’s best assessment should all technologies

be pursued vigorously"§  Optimistic: Stretch case with more optimistic, but still feasible,

assumptions "

§  Great care was taken to apply consistent assumptions to all technologies, e.g.:"§  Same amount of load reduction for all vehicle types"§  Vehicle costs built up from one vehicle type to the next"

§  Assessed system efficiencies and losses, not individual technologies, including fundamental technology limitations"

9

Vehicle Efficiency: Modeling Overview and Flow"

10

Ricardo Technology Simulation Modeling" !

11

Basis for US 2017-2025 GHG rulemaking technology assessment!

Simulation Modeling Scope

§  7 vehicle classes:"§  Small car (Toyota Yaris)"§  Standard car (Toyota Camry)"§  Full-size car (Chrysler 300C) "§  Small MPV (Saturn Vue)"§  Large MPV (Dodge Grand Caravan)"§  Pickup Truck (Ford F150)"§  Heavy light-duty truck (GM 2500/3500 pickup)"

§  Not used §  Drive cycles

§  US: FTP, HWFET, US06, Cold FTP §  Cold FTP is scaled from FTP via warm up modifiers"

12

Ricardo Technology Assumptions"

13

Client Name: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) Project No.: C000908 Archive: RD.11/478401.1 Client Confidential

27 January 2012 Page 12

5. TECHNOLOGY BUNDLES AND SIMULATION MATRICES Of the LDV classes described in Section 2.2, Ground Rules for Study, the C Class and Small N1 LDV were developed new for this study, whereas the other four—the B Class, D Class, Small CUV, and Large N1 Class—were carried over from the EPA study (Ricardo and SRA, 2011). These vehicle classes were combined with the technology packages described in Sections 4.2–4.5 for evaluation over the design space. In this study, ICCT and Ricardo defined the technology packages that would be used, given the applicability to the European LDV market, although most were identical to those used in the EPA program. 5.1 Technology Options Considered Definitions of the hybrid powertrain, engine, and transmission technology packages are presented in Tables 5.1–5.3. The engine technologies are defined in Table 5.1; hybrids, in Table 5.2; and transmissions, in Table 5.3. Many of the engines in Table 5.1 use some measure of internal EGR, but for this table "Yes" means significant EGR flow through an external EGR system. Note that there two versions of the Atkinson engine were developed: one with CPS and one with DVA. All of the advanced transmissions in Table 5.3 include the effects of the transmission technologies described in Section 4.4, including dry sump, improved component efficiency, improved kinematic design, super finish, and advanced driveline lubricants. 5.2 Vehicle configurations and technology combinations Vehicles were assessed using three basic powertrain configurations: conventional stop-start, P2 hybrid, and Input Powersplit hybrid. Each vehicle class considered in the study was modeled with a set of technology options, as shown in Table 5.4 for the baseline and conventional powertrains and Table 5.5 for the hybrid powertrains. Each of the advanced engines marked for a given vehicle class in Table 5.4 was paired with each of the advanced transmissions marked for the same vehicle class. Tables 5.4 and 5.5 also show the ranges of the continuous parameters—expressed as a percentage of the nominal value—used in the DoE study for the conventional and hybrid powertrains, respectively. The ranges were kept purposely broad, to cover the entire span of practical powertrain design options, with some added margin to allow a full analysis of parametric trends.

Table 5.1: Engine technology package definition.

CPS DVA2010 Baseline NA PFI No No NoStoich DI Turbo Boost DI No Yes NoLean-Stoich DI Turbo Boost DI No Yes NoEGR DI Turbo Boost DI Yes Yes NoAtkinson with CPS NA DI No Yes NoAtkinson with DVA NA DI No No YesDiesel Boost DI Yes Yes No

Air System

Fuel Injection EGR

ValvetrainEngine


27 January 2012

Table 5.2: Hybrid technology package definition. Powertrain Configuration

Function 2010 Baseline Stop-Start P2 Parallel Powersplit Engine idle-off Yes Yes Yes Yes Launch assist No No Yes Yes Regeneration No No Yes Yes EV mode No No Yes Yes CVT (Electronic) No No No Yes Power steering Belt Electrical Electrical Electrical Engine coolant pump Belt Belt Electrical Electrical Air conditioning Belt Belt Electrical Electrical Brake Standard Standard Blended Blended

Table 5.3: Transmission technology package definition. Transmission Launch Device Clutch

Baseline Automatic Torque Converter Hydraulic Advanced Automatic Multidamper Control Hydraulic Dry clutch DCT None Advanced Dry Wet clutch DCT None Advanced Damp

Table 5.4: Baseline and Conventional Stop-Start vehicle simulation matrix.

Advanced Engines Advanced Transmission

Vehicle Class Bas

elin

e En

gine

with

20

10

6-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic T

rans

.

2010

Die

sel w

ith 2

010

6-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic T

rans

.

Stoi

ch D

I Tur

bo

Lean

DI T

urbo

EGR

DI T

urbo

2020

Die

sel

6-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic

6-sp

eed

Dry

DCT

8-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic

8-sp

eed

Dry

DCT

8-sp

eed

Wet

DC

T

B Class X X X X X X X XC Class X X X X X X X X XD Class X X X X X X X X XSmall CUV X X X X X X X X XN1 (Large) X X X X X X X X X

ParameterEngine Displacement 50 125Final Drive Ratio 75 125Rolling Resistance 70 100Aerodynamic Drag 70 100Mass 60 120

DoE Range (%)


27 January 2012 Page 13

Table 5.2: Hybrid technology package definition. Powertrain Configuration

Function 2010 Baseline Stop-Start P2 Parallel Powersplit Engine idle-off Yes Yes Yes Yes Launch assist No No Yes Yes Regeneration No No Yes Yes EV mode No No Yes Yes CVT (Electronic) No No No Yes Power steering Belt Electrical Electrical Electrical Engine coolant pump Belt Belt Electrical Electrical Air conditioning Belt Belt Electrical Electrical Brake Standard Standard Blended Blended

Table 5.3: Transmission technology package definition. Transmission Launch Device Clutch

Baseline Automatic Torque Converter Hydraulic Advanced Automatic Multidamper Control Hydraulic Dry clutch DCT None Advanced Dry Wet clutch DCT None Advanced Damp

Table 5.4: Baseline and Conventional Stop-Start vehicle simulation matrix.

Advanced Engines Advanced Transmission

Vehicle Class Bas

elin

e En

gine

with

20

10

6-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic T

rans

.

2010

Die

sel w

ith 2

010

6-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic T

rans

.

Stoi

ch D

I Tur

bo

Lean

DI T

urbo

EGR

DI T

urbo

2020

Die

sel

6-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic

6-sp

eed

Dry

DCT

8-sp

eed

Aut

omat

ic

8-sp

eed

Dry

DCT

8-sp

eed

Wet

DC

T

B Class X X X X X X X XC Class X X X X X X X X XD Class X X X X X X X X XSmall CUV X X X X X X X X XN1 (Large) X X X X X X X X X

ParameterEngine Displacement 50 125Final Drive Ratio 75 125Rolling Resistance 70 100Aerodynamic Drag 70 100Mass 60 120

DoE Range (%)

Ricardo model inputs – Example "

32 © Ricardo plc 2012 RD.12/40201.1 1 February 2012 Non-Confidential – ICCT

Ricardo developed model inputs for technology packages,

e.g., Stoichiometric, Direct Injection Turbocharged Engine

Source: Schmuck-Soldan, S., A. Königstein, and F. Westin, 2011

Efficiency map generated by Ricardo for EPA program (left) is based on benchmarking and

research data, and compares favorably to research results from 2011 General Motors

paper (right) from demonstration engine.

Source: Ricardo Analysis

14

Stoichiometric, Direct Injection Turbocharged Engine"

Ricardo Model Inputs – Example"

Technologies Considered in the Agencies' Analysis

3-42

3.3.1.2.11.5 Motor/generator and power inverter efficiency maps

EPA recommended that Ricardo update the efficiency maps of the motor and generator (referred to as “electric machines” throughout the project), which they had proposed based on current best-in-class technology. The baseline motor/generator+inverter efficiency map is taken from a 2007 Camry and shown in Figure 3-5 below.

Figure 3-5: 2007 Camry Hybrid motor-inverter efficiency map (Burress, et al, 200830)

EPA requested that Ricardo provide their assessment of where they believed efficiency improvements might be made, based upon trends in research and development for both electric machines and power electronics. Ricardo and EPA generally agreed that these efficiency improvements were likely to be modest, particularly given the competitive pressures on manufacturers to reduce the cost of hybrid components. However, EPA and Ricardo assumed that today’s best-in-class efficiency would likely be marginally improved through continuous incremental reductions in parasitic losses. To account for this, EPA and Ricardo agreed to reduce the losses in the motor/generator by 10% (in other words, raising the efficiency of a 90% efficient motor to 91%) and to reduce the losses in the power electronics by 25% (mainly through continued improvements in inverter development and electronic control systems).

3.3.1.2.11.6 Battery

Battery packs were assumed to consist of spinel LiMnO2 cathode chemistry, which is consistent with the current state of technology. EPA recommended a maximum usable state of charge of 40% (from 30% charge to 70% charge) be incorporated as an operating window in

Motor Map "

15

Some Ricardo Maps May be Conservative"

Ricardo: Advanced engine BSFC map (27-bar cooled EGR turbocharged GDI engine for large car)"

RR

LD HEDGE ApplicationLD HEDGE ApplicationRR

! 2.4 L I4 Engine

! 11 4 1 CR! 11.4:1 CR

! Max EGR ~ 30%

! Boost limited" TC hardware could

not provide sufficient air

9

" Re-match of TC system required but not performed

ea

rch

In

sti

tute

®2

00

9

! Proprietary SwRI ignition system

© S

ou

th W

es

t R

ese

High Efficiency Dilute Gasoline Engines (HEDGE) Application [2.4L I4, 11.4:1 CR, Max EGR ~ 30%, boost limited (turbocharger hardware could not provide sufficient air), proprietary SwRI ignition system.] extracted from “Examples of HEDGE Engines”, Dr. Terry Alger, SwRI, Feb. 2010 "

HEDGE consortium is already working on a two-stage turbocharger system that will enable larger amounts of EGR, higher compression ratio, lower minimum BSFC, and a broader range of lower fuel consumption. " 16

17

EPA Energy Audit Data"

!

EPA Energy Audit Outputs"

Vehicle FTP Hwy Combined US06CO2 Emissions (g/mi) 302.8 209.0 260.6 312.2Fuel Economy (mpg) 30.0 43.5 34.9 29.1

2007 Base Vehicle CO2 (g/mi) 337.8 217.5 283.7% CO2 Reduction 10.4% 3.9% 8.1%

Engine FTP Hwy Combined US06Avg Brake Thermal Efficiency 20.7% 27.8% 22.7% 30.5%

Cycle Avg BSFC (g/kWh) 395 295 361 268Avg Engine Power (HP) 6.3 14.1 9.8 23.0

Avg Engine Speed (RPM) 1999 1833 1924 2453Avg Load (BMEP-bar) 2.04 3.27 2.59 5.19

Avg Torque (Nm) 38.9 62.5 49.5 99.1Total Fuel (g) 1379.9 657.8 1054.9 764.8

Engine Off Events 30 1 n/a 5% Time Off 17.8% 0.5% 10.0% 6.5%

Accessory Loss 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%Avg accessory power (W) 5.6 198.0 92.2 12.4

Avg BSFC temp mult (20F) 1.23 n/a n/a n/aAvg BSFC temp mult (75F) 1.15 n/a n/a n/a

Transmission FTP Hwy Combined US06Time in gear 1 31% 2% 18% 13%Time in gear 2 10% 1% 6% 5%Time in gear 3 19% 2% 11% 7%Time in gear 4 28% 6% 18% 8%Time in gear 5 7% 35% 20% 10%Time in gear 6 6% 54% 28% 57%Time in gear 7 0% 0% 0% 0%Time in gear 8 0% 0% 0% 0%

Avg. η (gear) 87.3% 88.0% 87.6% 87.9%Avg. η (TC) 90.7% 97.8% 93.9% 95.8%

Avg. η (driveline) 79.2% 86% 82.3% 84.1%Battery FTP Hwy Combined US06

SOC Avg n/a n/a n/a n/aStd Deviation n/a n/a n/a n/a

Max SOC n/a n/a n/a n/aMin SOC n/a n/a n/a n/a

Max SOC Swing n/a n/a n/a n/aBattery Efficiency (%) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Average Voltage (V) n/a n/a n/a n/aStd Dev Voltage (V) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Battery Energy Change (kWh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% of braking energy recovered 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

%batt charge via brake recov #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!%batt charge via engine #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

MG1 FTP Hwy Combined US06Test-Avg Motor Power (hp) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Avg Motor Eff n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg Generator Eff n/a n/a n/a n/a

Avg Torque-Motor (N-m) n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg Torque-Generator (N-m) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Avg RPM-Motor n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg RPM-Generator n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mech Energy-Motor (kWh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mech Energy-Gen (kWh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

MG2 FTP Hwy Combined US06Avg Motor Power (hp)

Avg Motor Eff n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg Generator Eff n/a n/a n/a n/a

Avg Torque-Motor (N-m) n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg Torque-Generator (N-m) n/a n/a n/a n/a

Avg RPM-Motor n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg RPM-Generator n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mech Energy-Motor (kWh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mech Energy-Gen (kWh) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Round-trip MG efficiency #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Buck/Boost Converter FTP Hwy Combined

Avg Discharge Eff n/a n/a n/a n/aAvg Charging Eff n/a n/a n/a n/a

Avg Bus Voltage (V) n/a n/a n/a n/aLHV (fuel) 44 kJ/gSG (fuel) 0.739Specific CO2 9087 g/gal

18

EPA Energy Audit: ICE Energy Distribution"

Vehicle Energy Audit (kWh) FTP Hwy Combined US06Total fuel energy 16.86 8.04 12.89 9.35

Total indicated energy 6.11 2.95 4.69 3.55Engine pumping energy 1.47 0.19 0.90 0.19

Engine friction energy 1.14 0.48 0.85 0.51Crankshaft accessory energy 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Brake-regen accessory energy 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.04Net brake thermal energy 3.49 2.23 2.92 2.85

Torque converter losses 0.32 0.05 0.20 0.12Transmission losses 0.40 0.26 0.34 0.33

Battery loop losses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PE losses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Losses to MG devices 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total driveline losses 0.73 0.31 0.54 0.45

Vehicle tractive energy 2.76 1.92 2.38 2.40Total road load energy 1.63 1.76 1.68 1.75

Foundation braking energy 0.50 0.11 0.32 0.49Alternator regen decel energy 0.62 0.06 0.37 0.12Total reqd. braking energy 1.12 0.16 0.69 0.62

19

EPA Energy Audit: Hybrid Energy Distribution"

Vehicle Energy Audit (kWh) FTP Hwy Combined US06Total fuel energy 7.88 5.88 6.98 6.83

Total indicated energy 3.32 2.46 2.93 2.93Engine pumping energy 0.08 -0.05 0.02 0.02

Engine friction energy 0.45 0.35 0.40 0.41Net brake thermal energy 2.80 2.16 2.51 2.51

Total accessory energy 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.03 accessory losses absorbed within hybrid drivetrainTorque converter losses 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.02 should be 0 for DCTs - add to MG device losses

Transmission losses 0.28 0.15 0.22 0.20Battery loop losses 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.08

PE losses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 converter incorporated into MG device efficiencyLosses to MG devices 0.43 0.12 0.29 0.13

Total driveline losses 1.03 0.36 0.73 0.46(net) Vehicle tractive energy 1.77 1.80 1.78 2.04

Total road load energy 1.64 1.77 1.70 1.76Foundation braking energy 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.30 conventional braking (dissipated as heat)

Error 0.03 0.01 0.02 -0.02 validated as wheel slip on heavy accelsHybrid Energy Detail (kWh) FTP Hwy Combined US06

Engine power to wheels 1.33 1.48 1.40 2.05 net engine power used for accelerationMotor power to wheels 1.85 0.51 1.25 0.54

Gross energy to wheels 3.18 2.00 2.65 2.59Engine power to generator 1.12 0.53 0.85 0.23 net engine power used to charge HEV system

Braking energy to generator 1.41 0.19 0.86 0.55 extra tractive energy put into wheels and reabsorbedTotal power to generator 2.53 0.72 1.72 0.78

Net tractive energy check 1.77 1.80 1.78 2.04 gross power - braking energy to generator

20

Energy Audit Outputs Applied to 2030 Example: Camry"

21

Extrapolation of Losses/Efficiencies to 2050 Example: Camry"•  In general, annual reductions in losses for 2030 to 2050 were assumed

to be half of the 2010 to 2030 annual reduction rate"•  Pumping losses assumed to be 20% of 2010 to 2030 rate"•  Indicated efficiency improvement rate maintained"

22

Energy Audit Outputs for HybridsExample: Camry Hybrid"

Generator Motor Charge Discharge2010 Baseline 89.5% 90.5% 96.5% 96.5% 75.4%2030 Midrange 89.5% 90.5% 96.5% 96.5% 75.4%2050 Midrange 91.6% 92.4% 96.8% 96.8% 79.4%2030 Optimistic 90.5% 91.5% 96.7% 96.7% 77.4%2050 Optimistic 92.6% 93.4% 97.2% 97.2% 81.7%

Net E-Machine

EfficiencyBattery EfficiencyE-Machine Efficiency

2030 % pumping and friction reductions versus ICE case unchanged for 2050 projections."

Projections of % tractive energy provided by regen. affected by improvements to battery and motor efficiency"

Ricardo did not conduct baseline hybrid simulations, so future hybrids were compared to future ICEs for both 2030 and 2050"

23

24

Vehicle Loads" Ricardo did not model changes in vehicle load!

Ricardo – Baseline Vehicle Tractive Loads "

25

Tire Rolling Resistance Projections"

Yaris Camry 300 Vue Grand Caravan F150 Applicable Scenario

Rolling Resistance Coefficient r0 0.0094 0.0082 0.0113 0.0069 0.0072 0.0082 Baseline final rolling resistance coefficients 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 2025/30 midrange

2030 mid-‐range -‐ 1.5% annual reduc.on 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 2050 midrange 2030 op.mis.c -‐ 2.0% annual reduc.on 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 2025/30 optimistic 2030 to 2050 -‐ 1.0% annual reduc.on 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 2050 optimistic

Yaris Camry 300 Vue Grand Caravan F150 Applicable Scenario

final rolling resistance mul0pliers 0.672 0.768 0.768 0.914 0.877 0.766 2025/30 midrange 0.550 0.628 0.628 0.747 0.717 0.627 2050 midrange

300 set equal to Camry 0.607 0.694 0.694 0.825 0.792 0.692 2025/30 optimistic 0.496 0.567 0.567 0.675 0.648 0.566 2050 optimistic

2% annual reduc.on in .re rolling resistance

(1980-‐2010)"

26

Aerodynamic Drag Projections"

Yaris" Camry" 300" Vue" Grand Caravan" F150" Applicable "

Scenario"Coefficient of Drag (Cd)" 0.32" 0.3" 0.33" 0.37" 0.34" 0.41" Baseline"

final drag coefficients" 0.272" 0.255" 0.255" 0.315" 0.289" 0.349" 2025/30 midrange!300 matched to Camry" 0.240" 0.225" 0.225" 0.278" 0.255" 0.308" 2050 midrange!

0.256" 0.240" 0.240" 0.296" 0.272" 0.328" 2025/30 optimistic!0.224" 0.210" 0.210" 0.259" 0.238" 0.287" 2050 optimistic!

Aero Cd reduction"

Frontal Area Multiplier"

2025/30 midrange! 15%" " 1.0"2050 midrange! 25%" " 0.95"2025/30 optimistic! 20%" " 0.95"2050 optimistic! 30%" " 0.9"

final aerodynamic drag multipliers" 0.850" 0.850" 0.773" 0.850" 0.850" 0.850" 2025/30 midrange! " 0.713" 0.713" 0.648" 0.713" 0.713" 0.713" 2050 midrange! " 0.760" 0.760" 0.691" 0.760" 0.760" 0.760" 2025/30 optimistic! " 0.630" 0.630" 0.573" 0.630" 0.630" 0.630" 2050 optimistic!

27

Weight Reduction Projections"

! Cars!and!Unibody!Light!Trucks! Body6on6frame!Light!Trucks!

Year!%!Weight!Reduction!!

Cost!($/lb)!

%!Reduction!with!weight!growth!

%!Weight!Reduction!!

Cost!!($/lb)!

%!Reduction!with!weight!growth!

2030! 25! 1.08! Mid:!20! 20! 0.86! Mid:!15!! ! ! Opt:!25! ! ! Opt:!20!

2050! 40! 1.73! Mid:!30! 32! 1.38! Mid:!22!! ! ! Opt:!40! ! ! Opt:!32!

!

•  Weight cost ($/lb) curve from 2017-25 light-duty vehicle GHG/CAFE standards"

•  Subsequent studies indicate cost could be about half of that above"

28

29

Meszler Energy Balance Model"

!

Energy Balance Model Equations"

REVIEW DRAFT � September 14, 2012 FOR USE BY REVIEWERS, THE NRC AND THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSITIONS TO

ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES AND FUELS DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE!

"#$+!

!

D = the aerodynamic drag force, and $! M = the required motive force. %!

&!Rolling resistance is primarily related to the design characteristics of the vehicle tires and vehicle '!mass. It is generally represented as: (! )!

R = (r0 + r1v + r2v2) ! mg *! +!

where: r0, r1, r2 = tire rolling resistance coefficients, ,! v = vehicle velocity, $-! m = vehicle mass, and $$! g = gravitational acceleration (9.80665 meters per second squared)8. $%!

$&!The three rolling resistance coefficients measure the design resistance of the tire. For radial tires, $'!the velocity squared coefficient (r2) is generally negligible and is usually ignored (as is the case $(!for this project). The velocity coefficient (r1) is generally numerically small relative to r0, but $)!can have a significant effect on overall rolling resistance as velocity increases. $*! $+!Aerodynamic drag is primarily related to the airflow characteristics and frontal cross sectional $,!area of the vehicle. It is generally represented as: %-! %$!

D = Cd ! A ! 0.5 ! v2 �� %%! %&!

where: Cd = the coefficient of drag of the vehicle, %'! A = the frontal area of the vehicle, %(! v = vehicle velocity, and %)! � = air density (1.2041 kilograms per cubic meter)9. %*!

%+!The coefficient of drag can range from as low as 0.15 for an optimally streamlined vehicle to as %,!high as 0.7 for an open convertible passenger car to over one for large freight trucks. Almost all &-!passenger cars and light trucks have coefficients in the range of 0.25-0.45. The frontal area of a &$!vehicle represents a two dimensional profile of the air that must be moved out of the way for the &%!vehicle to pass. It essentially is defined by the area that is perpendicular to the line of sight of a &&!person looking directly at an oncoming vehicle, and includes the cross sectional area of &'!protuberances such as tires, mirrors, etc. Although the precise frontal area must be measured for &(!any given vehicle, most generally fall within a range of 80-85 percent of the product of a &)!�� &*! &+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8 �� 9.78-9.82

meters per second squared. The value used for this project is the officially established value for standard gravity as set by the 3rd General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1901.!

9 Air density is influenced by ambient temperature and ambient pressure/elevation. The value presented here (and used for this project) is for standard conditions of 101.33 kilopascals and 20°C (68°F), as prescribed for constant volume sampler calibration in 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart N, §1319-90.!

REVIEW DRAFT ! September 14, 2012 FOR USE BY REVIEWERS, THE NRC AND THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSITIONS TO


"#$*!

!

the required calculations.6 Nevertheless, a brief overview of the basic issues that are considered $!in the tractive energy calculations, as implemented in the two step model used for this project, %!follow. &!

'!To avoid any confusion with subsequent (second step) energy loss calculations, it is easiest, for (!tractive energy calculation purposes, to visualize the vehicle as freed of its power source and all )!related energy transfer technology (i.e., it is without an engine and drivetrain or other source of *!energy), so that its wheels are free to roll, and those wheels are themselves subject to no +!frictional losses in their attachment to the vehicle. Tractive energy is then the energy that must ,!be supplied to navigate this powerless vehicle over a given driving cycle, in this case, the CAFE $-!driving cycles described above. Since these test cycles are conducted indoors using a stationary $$!vehicle, forces related to wind, cornering, and grade are fixed at zero.7 $%! $&!Under such conditions, the forces acting on a vehicle as it navigates a defined driving cycle are $'!related to three influences: (1) tire rolling resistance, (2) aerodynamic drag, and (3) required $(!vehicle motion. Tire rolling resistance is a measure of the force that must be applied to $)!overcome the deformation characteristics of a tire (i.e., the force required to make the tire roll $*!rather than deform). Aerodynamic drag is a measure of the force that must be applied to $+!overcome the frictional characteristics of air (i.e., air has mass and thus induces a force that $,!opposes vehicle motion). Vehicle motive force is a measure of the force required to induce a %-!specified acceleration (or deceleration, which is simply a negative acceleration). Together, these %$!three influences define the net force that must be applied to a vehicle to navigate a defined %%!driving cycle. In mathematical terms: %&! %'!

F = R + D + M %(! %)!

where: F = the net force required to move the vehicle, %*! R = the force of rolling resistance, %+!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 Readers interested in detailed expositions on vehicle dynamics (which underlie the calculation of tractive energy)

can consult any of a large number of available texts and reference papers. Although by no means meant to imply primacy amongst such references, examples include:

Thomas D. Gillespie, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, ISBN 1-56091-199-9, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, Pennsylvania, March 1992.

Robert Bosch GmbH, Automotive Handbook, 4th Edition, Stuttgart, Germany, October 1996.

�� "Formulae for the Tractive-Energy Requirements of Vehicles Driving the EPA Schedules�#�� SN 0148-7191, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1981.!

7 Vehicle motion is simulated using a chassis dynamometer (a set of, usually floor-mounted, rollers that rotate to absorb the motion that would otherwise be imparted by a set of spinning wheels) and appropriate load settings.!



"#$+!

!



R = (r0 + r1v + r2v2) ! mg *! +!



D = Cd ! A ! 0.5 ! v2 �� %%! %&!







"#$+!

!



R = (r0 + r1v + r2v2) ! mg *! +!



D = Cd ! A ! 0.5 ! v2 �� %%! %&!







"#%-!

!

$!mrot = I / (rr2) %!

&!where: mrot = rotational inertia equivalent mass, '! I = tire rotational inertia, and (! rr = tire rolling radius. )!

*!The equivalent mass imparted by four tires is four times mrot, so that the total mass associated +!with the motive force is m + 4mrot and the overall motive force is: ,! $-!

F = (m + 4mrot�� $$! $%!It is this more precise definition that is applied for this project, although the difference between $&!the less and more precise definitions is generally minor as the mass due to rotational inertia is $'!small compared to typical vehicle mass (typically less than 3 percent, and smaller still for high $(!mass vehicles). Nevertheless this relationship can vary, especially if mass reduction technology $)!is employed in an aggressive fashion, so the more precise rotational effects are considered. $*! $+!As indicated, the net force required to navigate a specified driving cycle is dependent on several $,!vehicle characteristics � namely, the tire rolling resistance coefficients, vehicle mass, the vehicle %-!coefficient of drag, vehicle frontal area, tire rotational inertia, and tire rolling radius � and several %$!parameters associated with the specified driving cycle � namely velocity and acceleration per %%!unit time. These latter parameters are defined by the driving cycle itself, and for this project %&!represent the characteristics of the two CAFE driving cycles as depicted above. Table A2-2.2 %'!presents the former vehicle-specific parameters (under baseline conditions) that have been %(!assumed for this project. %)! %*! %+! %,! &-!

&$!



"#%$!

!

!$!

Table A2-2.2. Baseline V ehicle T ractive Energy Parameters

Parameter Units Toyota Yaris

Toyota Camry

Chrysler 300

Saturn Vue

Grand Caravan

Ford F150

r0 Coefficient 0.009402 0.008223 0.011288 0.006913 0.007207 0.008245 r1 Coefficient sec/m 2.36E-05 4.24E-06 4.99E-05 0.000181 0.000165 0.000111 r2 Coefficient sec2/m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cd Coefficient 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.34 0.41 Frontal Area ft2 24.76 24.76 25.83 26.91 30.14 35.20 Frontal Area m2 2.30 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.80 3.27 Vehicle Mass pounds 2,625 3,625 4,000 4,000 4,500 6,000 Vehicle Mass kg 1,190.7 1,644.3 1,814.4 1,814.4 2,041.2 2,721.6 Rolling Radius (1) m 0.282 0.320 0.342 0.340 0.330 0.382 Rotational Inertia (1) kg-m2 0.56 0.90 0.97 0.95 0.94 1.00 Rotational Mass (2) kg 28.17 35.16 33.17 32.87 34.53 27.41 Effective Mass kg 1218.9 1679.4 1847.6 1847.3 2075.7 2749.0 Rotational Mass Factor 1.024 1.021 1.018 1.018 1.017 1.010

(1) Per tire.

(2) Total for four tires. %!Tractive energy is the energy expended in exerting the force required to navigate a driving cycle &!over the distance associated with that cycle. Since driving cycles are generally defined in terms '!of velocity and time (rather than distance), it is convenient to express distance in terms of (!velocity and time (as distance = velocity ! time) and tractive energy as: )! *!

TE = F ! s = F ! v ! t +! ,!

where: F = the net force required to move the vehicle, $-! s = the distance over which the force is applied, $$! t = the time interval over which the force is applied, and $%! v = vehicle velocity over the time interval $&!

$'!As with the force calculation, the precise energy calculation would be expressed as the $(!instantaneous energy required for a given instantaneous force and time. Total tractive energy is $)!then the sum (or integration) of this instantaneous energy over an entire specified driving cycle. $*!In keeping with the one hertz nature of the force calculations, the energy calculations for this $+!project are also performed once per second and summed over the driving cycle to obtain the total $,!estimated tractive energy required to navigate the cycle. %-! %$!�� !��%%!�� !��%&!drivetrain and engine (or alternative energy source) to derive the required amount of energy that %'!�� %(!

30

Losses Incorporated into Model"

31

Benchmark Results"

32

ICE efficiency limits much higher than

previously reported"

Careful application of technology and load reduction!

33

Example: Camry"

34

Example: Camry Hybrid"

35

Es.mated Test Fuel Economy for Average New Vehicles

36

Figure 2-1 Historical and Projected Light-duty Vehicle Fuel Economy"Note: All data is new fleet only using unadjusted test values, no in-use fuel consumption." FTP values, projections assume light duty fleet is 38% light duty trucks"

Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles"

Same load reduction applied!

37

Fuel Cell and BEV Efficiency Assumptions"

38

Generator Motor Charge Discharge2010 Baseline 89.5% 90.5% 96.5% 96.5% 75.4%2030 Midrange 89.5% 90.5% 96.5% 96.5% 75.4%2050 Midrange 91.6% 92.4% 96.8% 96.8% 79.4%2030 Optimistic 90.5% 91.5% 96.7% 96.7% 77.4%2050 Optimistic 92.6% 93.4% 97.2% 97.2% 81.7%

Net E-Machine

EfficiencyBattery EfficiencyE-Machine Efficiency

NAS: Overall MPG Results"

39

TABLE 2-12 Estimated Miles per Gallon (Gasoline Equivalent) on EPA Test Cycle

ICEV HEV BEV FCEV

Cars LT Cars LT Cars LT Cars LT

2010 Baseline (mpgge) 31 24 43 32 144 106 89 65

2030 Mid-range (mpgge)

64 46 78 54 190 133 122 86

2050 Mid-range (mpgge)

87 61 112 77 243 169 166 115

2030 Opt (mpgge) 74 52 92 64 219 154 145 102

2050 Opt (mpgge) 110 77 146 100 296 205 206 143

PHEV efficiency assumed to be the same as BEV during charge-depleting mode and the same as HEV during charge-sustaining mode"

95 mpg = 55 g/km"

40

Cost Estimates for NAS Study"

!

Cost Estimates: Overview and Flow"

ICE Cost" Hybrid Cost"

BEV Cost"

FCV Cost"

PHEV Cost"

Load reduction (weight, aero, tire rr)"

Energy balance model"

2030 ICE & hybrid

Efficiency"Vehicle

Efficiency"

Power (kW) needed for constant

performance"

Battery cost"Hydrogen tank cost"

Engine cost"Fuel cell cost"

Electric motor cost"

MIT 2007 reports"

Battery cost"Motor cost"

Hybrid system costs"- Engine credit"

- stop/start credit"

Charger cost"Delta battery, motor,

and engine costs"

Delta battery, motor costs"

Engine delete credit"

Fuel cell stack"H storage tank"Delta battery, motor costs"

Engine delete credit"

41

Cost Assumptions"

§  All costs assume high volume production"§  ICE costs were not specifically assessed"

§  Based upon 2007 MIT estimates"§  Differential costs (ICE to hybrid, hybrid to

PHEV, BEV, and FCV) were carefully assessed "§  Hybrid system costs based on FEV teardown

studies"

42

Powertrain Sizing"

43

Motor Size (% of propulsion power)!HEV" 20%"

PHEV-10/25" 60%" Based on Prius PHEV-10"PHEV-40" 90%" Extended range PHEV (not currently used)"BEV/FCV" 100%"

Fuel Cell System (% of propulsion power)! LDT Share!Unibody" 80%" 60%"

Body-on-frame" 100%" 40%"

Engine Size (% of propulsion power)!Unibody" Body-on-frame" % car unibody" % LDT Unibody"

HEV" 85%" 100%" 100%" 60%"PHEV-10/25" 80%" 100%" 100%" 60%"

PHEV-40" 50%"CNG" 110%" 110%"

Downsized Engine Credits"ICE Credit - Car" ICE Credit - Light Truck"

Load reduction" HEV" PHEV" CNG"

CNG w/ HEV"

BEV & FCV"

Load reduction" HEV" PHEV" CNG"

CNG w/ HEV"

BEV & FCV"

$0" -$120" -$160" $80" $80" $4,000" $0" -$93" -$123" $103" $103" $5,000"-$47" -$115" -$153" $75" $72" $4,000" -$48" -$92" -$121" $98" $94" $5,000"-$94" -$111" -$146" $71" $64" $4,000" -$95" -$91" -$118" $93" $85" $5,000"

-$142" -$106" -$138" $66" $57" $4,000" -$143" -$90" -$116" $89" $76" $5,000"-$189" -$101" -$131" $61" $49" $4,000" -$191" -$89" -$113" $84" $68" $5,000"-$208" -$97" -$126" $59" $48" $4,000" -$210" -$85" -$109" $82" $68" $5,000"-$228" -$93" -$121" $57" $48" $4,000" -$229" -$82" -$106" $80" $68" $5,000"-$247" -$89" -$116" $55" $48" $4,000" -$248" -$78" -$102" $78" $68" $5,000"-$266" -$85" -$111" $53" $47" $4,000" -$267" -$75" -$98" $76" $68" $5,000" " " " "

$0" -$120" -$160" $80" $80" $4,000" $0" -$93" -$123" $103" $103" $5,000"-$57" -$113" -$150" $74" $72" $4,000" -$58" -$90" -$119" $97" $94" $5,000"-$115" -$106" -$140" $69" $64" $4,000" -$116" -$87" -$114" $91" $85" $5,000"-$172" -$99" -$131" $63" $56" $4,000" -$174" -$84" -$110" $85" $77" $5,000"-$229" -$93" -$121" $57" $48" $4,000" -$233" -$81" -$105" $80" $68" $5,000"-$255" -$88" -$115" $55" $47" $4,000" -$258" -$78" -$101" $77" $67" $5,000"-$280" -$83" -$109" $52" $46" $4,000" -$283" -$74" -$96" $75" $66" $5,000"-$306" -$78" -$103" $49" $44" $4,000" -$307" -$70" -$92" $72" $65" $5,000"-$331" -$73" -$96" $47" $43" $4,000" -$332" -$67" -$88" $70" $65" $5,000"

MIT" " MIT"

ICE credit = " $171! times % power reduction times number of cylinders" " " Based on FEV teardown work: See "engine credit" worksheet"

44

Load Reduction Costs"

LOAD INPUTS - CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS"Lightweight materials" Cost/pound - unibody"

Max amount of weight reduction - unibody" Body on Frame" "

Tire rolling"

" HSS" Mixed"Carbon

fiber" HSS" Mixed"Carbon

fiber"cost/

pound"weight

reduction" Aero"resistanc

e"Midrange" 2010" 0" $0.00 " 0.0%" 0.0%" 0" $0.00 " 0.0%" $0 " $0 "

" 2015" 0" $0.27 " 0.0%" 6.3%" $0.22 " 5.0%" $50 " $13 " " 2020" 0" $0.54 " 0.0%" 12.5%" $0.43 " 10.0%" $100 " $25 " " 2025" 0" $0.81 " 0.0%" 18.8%" $0.65 " 15.0%" $150 " $38 " " 2030" 0" $1.08 " 0.0%" 25.0%" 0" $0.86 " 20.0%" $200 " $50 " " 2035" 0" $1.24 " 0.0%" 28.8%" $0.99 " 23.0%" $200 " $50 " " 2040" 0" $1.40 " 0.0%" 32.5%" $1.12 " 26.0%" $200 " $50 " " 2045" 0" $1.57 " 0.0%" 36.3%" $1.25 " 29.0%" $200 " $50 " " 2050" 0" $1.73 " 0.0%" 40.0%" 0" $1.38 " 32.0%" $200 " $50 " " " "

Optimistic" 2010" 0" $0.00 " 0.0%" 0.0%" $0.00 " 0.0%" $0 " $0 " " 2015" 0" $0.27 " 0.0%" 6.3%" $0.22 " 5.0%" $25 " $0 " " 2020" 0" $0.54 " 0.0%" 12.5%" $0.43 " 10.0%" $50 " $0 " " 2025" 0" $0.81 " 0.0%" 18.8%" $0.65 " 15.0%" $75 " $0 " " 2030" 0" $1.08 " 0.0%" 25.0%" $0.86 " 20.0%" $100 " $0 " " 2035" 0" $1.24 " 0.0%" 28.8%" $0.99 " 23.0%" $100 " $0 " " 2040" 0" $1.40 " 0.0%" 32.5%" $1.12 " 26.0%" $100 " $0 " " 2045" 0" $1.57 " $4.62" 0.0%" 36.3%" 0%" $1.25 " 29.0%" $100 " $0 " " 2050" 0" $1.73 " $4.62" 0.0%" 40.0%" 0%" $1.38 " 32.0%" $100 " $0 "

•  Lightweight material costs from 2017-25 light-duty GHG/CO2 rulemaking"

45

Battery Sizing Inputs"

SIZES" " Range on test cycles " BEV"Battery Depth of

Discharge"HEV

battery" Fuel cell"

" PHEV" BEV"FCV-

battery"FCV/CNG"

Deterioration" PHEV" BEV" FCV" kW/kWh" Stack eff."

Midrange" 2010" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 60%" 80%" 60%" 20" 53.0%" " 2015" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 60%" 82%" 65%" 20" " " 2020" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 65%" 84%" 70%" 25" 53.0%" " 2025" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 70%" 86%" 75%" 30" " " 2030" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 75%" 88%" 75%" 35" 55.3%" " 2035" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 80%" 90%" 75%" 35" " " 2040" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 80%" 90%" 75%" 35" 57.5%" " 2045" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 80%" 90%" 75%" 40" " " 2050" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 80%" 90%" 75%" 40" 59.6%" " " " " " " "

Optimistic" 2010" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 60%" 80%" 60%" 20" 53.0%" " 2015" 30" 130" 6" 390" 10%" 65%" 83%" 65%" 25" " " 2020" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 70%" 86%" 70%" 30" 55.3%" " 2025" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 75%" 89%" 75%" 35" " " 2030" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 80%" 92%" 76%" 35" 57.5%" " 2035" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 81%" 93%" 77%" 40" " " 2040" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 82%" 94%" 78%" 40" 59.6%" " 2045" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 83%" 94%" 79%" 45" " " 2050" 30" 130" 3.6" 390" 10%" 84%" 94%" 80%" 45" 61.5%"

46

Battery and Motor Costs"

" Battery costs ($/kWh) "On-board converter"

HEV/PHEV: Total motor costs"

BEV/FCV: Total motor costs"

" HEV" PHEV" BEV" FCV" PHEV" BEV" Fixed" $/kW" Fixed" $/kW"Midrange" 2010" $2,000" $800" $600" $800" $489" $489" $668" $11.6" $668" $11.6"

" 2015" $1,500" $600" $400" $600" $465" $465" $586" $10.4" $586" $10.4" " 2020" $1,200" $400" $300" $500" $442" $442" $504" $9.2" $504" $9.2" " 2025" $900" $350" $275" $460" $421" $421" $449" $7.7" $464" $8.2" " 2030" $750" $320" $250" $420" $400" $400" $393" $6.3" $425" $7.3" " 2035" $700 " $290 " $225 " $380 " $380" $380" $374" $6.0" $404" $6.9" " 2040" $650" $260" $200" $340" $362" $362" $356" $5.7" $384" $6.6" " 2045" $650" $230" $180" $300" $344" $344" $338" $5.4" $365" $6.3" " 2050" $650" $200" $160" $270" $327" $327" $322" $5.2" $347" $6.0" " " " " " "

Optimistic" 2010" $2,000" $800" $600" $800" $489" $489" $668" $11.6" $668" $11.6" " 2015" $1,500" $600" $400" $600" $465" $465" $586" $10.4" $586" $10.4" " 2020" $1,000 " $400" $300" $500" $442" $442" $504" $9.2" $504" $9.2" " 2025" $750" $320" $250" $420" $421" $421" $427" $7.3" $442" $7.8" " 2030" $650" $260" $200" $340" $400" $400" $349" $5.5" $381" $6.5" " 2035" $650" $230" $180" $300" $380" $380" $332" $5.2" $362" $6.2" " 2040" $650" $200" $160" $270" $362" $362" $316" $5.0" $344" $5.9" " 2045" $650" $194" $155" $260" $344" $344" $301" $4.7" $327" $5.6" " 2050" $650 " $190" $150" $250" $327" $327" $286" $4.5" $311" $5.3"

•  Battery costs based primarily on MIT and ANL work"•  Motor costs based upon FEV teardown analyses (note fixed and variable components)"

47

Hybrid System Costs: Baseline"

REVIEW DRAFT 6 September 14, 2012 FOR USE BY REVIEWERS, THE NRC AND THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSITIONS TO


F#17!!

Electric power steering and water pump $200 $170 Regenerative brakes $250 $210 Electric air conditioning $300 $220 High voltage cables $200 $150 Body/chassis/special components $200 $150 Credit for starter and alternator ($95) ($95) 1!Following are the cost estimates from FEV for each of the 6 vehicles evaluated for Europe 2!(FEV's analysis for Europe is being used to be consistent with the motor cost estimates). The 3!FEV analyses for high volume production in 2010 and are based upon detailed tear-down studies 4!of all components. 5!

Vehicle'Example VW'Polo VW'Golf VW'Passat VW'Sharan VW'Tiguan Touareg

Curb'Weight'Average'"lb" 2390.00 2803.00 3299.00 3749.00 3513.00 4867.00System'Power'"kW"'(hp) 64.60 77.80 101.20 151.10 114.60 271.80

ICE'Power'"kW"'(hp)' 51.70 62.30 80.90 120.90 91.70 271.80Traction'Motor'Power'"kW"'(hp) 12.90 15.60 20.23 30.22 22.90 54.30

High'Voltage''Battery'Capacity'"kWh" 0.74 0.86 0.99 1.12 1.05 1.43Torque'converter'T'Baseline'(Credit) (�'45.89) (�'49.12) (�'53.82) (�'59.73) (�'56.00) (�'72.19)Service'Battery'Subsystem (�'2.43) (�'2.43) (�'2.43) (�'2.43) (�'2.43) (�'2.43)Alternator'and'Regulator'Subsystem (�'56.92) (�'61.23) (�'78.70) (�'82.72) (�'82.72) (�'90.55)Body'System �'5.83 �'6.10 �'6.24 �'6.39 �'5.56 �'5.89Brake'System �'156.15 �'159.31 �'163.11 �'166.55 �'164.74 �'175.11Electric'AC'Compressor'Subsystem �'101.58 �'106.08 �'111.45 �'115.15 �'117.50 �'135.48Auxiliary'Heating'Subsystem �'28.60 �'29.82 �'31.26 �'32.26 �'32.89 �'37.73Voltage'Inverters/Converters �'81.02 �'88.35 �'110.31 �'117.63 �'117.63 �'128.61Power'Distribution'and'Control �'140.09 �'143.57 �'147.02 �'150.58 �'146.33 �'152.14TOTAL � 408.04 � 420.44 � 434.43 �'443.68 �'443.50 � 469.78 6!

7!

Note that the costs are reasonably consistent over the different vehicle. Further, the Polo is much 8!smaller than the vast majority of vehicles in the US. The average U.S. propulsion system power 9!is 128 kW for cars and 167 kW for light trucks. The Sharan (151 kW) and Tiguan (115 kW) are 10!the models with system power closest to the US average and their hybrid system costs are 11!virtually identical. Thus, the hybrid system costs for the Sharan, with a system power in between 12!the averages for the US car and light truck, w!,!�/-! �"*,��''�0!$%�'!-�%)�.$!��*((%..!!;-�13!analysis. 14!

Battery costs and motor costs apply to all hybrid, battery, and fuel cell vehicles. Battery and 15!motor costs are addressed below in the section on batteries.4 This section considers the cost of 16!the other hybrid components. 17!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4!Credit for a downsized engine in hybrid vehicles is explicitly calculated in the cost spreadsheet, so is also not considered in this section.!

48

•  Based upon detailed FEV teardown analyses of high volume production in 2010 for Europe (contract from ICCT) "

•  First systematic assessment of hybrid system costs beyond motors and batteries"

Hybrid System Cost Adjustments"

" " Data from FEV cost estimates for Europe. VW Sharan used for both cars and light trucks.!

Midrange!Torque conv

(Credit)"Service Battery"

Alternator &

Regulator"Body

System"Brake

System"Electric AC Compresso

r"Auxiliary Heating"

Voltage Inverter/

Converter"

Power Dist. and Control"

Enable use of AMT -

credit"TOTAL"

2010 Baseline - $" ($84)" ($3)" ($116)" $9 " $233 " $161 " $45 " $165 " $211 " $621 "2015 - same as 2010" ($84)" ($3)" ($116)" $9 " $233 " $161 " $45 " $165 " $211 " $621 "2020 - 2% learning" ($76)" ($3)" ($105)" $8 " $105 " $146 " $41 " $149 " $191 " $456 "2025 - 1% learning" ($72)" ($3)" ($100)" $0 " $100 " $139 " $39 " $142 " $181 " $426 "2030 - 1% learning" ($68)" ($3)" ($95)" $0 " $95 " $0 " $37 " $135 " $172 " $273 "2035 - 1% learning" ($65)" ($3)" ($90)" $0 " $90 " $0 " $35 " $128 " $164 " ($150)" $110 "2040 - 1% learning" ($62)" ($3)" ($86)" $0 " $86 " $0 " $33 " $122 " $156 " ($143)" $104 "2045 - 1% learning" ($59)" ($2)" ($81)" $0 " $82 " $0 " $32 " $116 " $148 " ($136)" $99 "2050 - 1% learning" ($56)" ($2)" ($77)" $0 " $78 " $0 " $30 " $110 " $141 " ($129)" $94 " " "

Optimistic! Torque conv"

Service Battery"

Alt./Regulator"

Body System"

Brake System"Electric AC" Aux.

Heating" Inverter" Power Dist."

Enable AMT" TOTAL"

2010 Baseline - $" ($84)" ($3)" ($116)" $9 " $233 " $161 " $45 " $165 " $211 " $621 "2015 - 2% learning" ($84)" ($3)" ($116)" $8 " $211 " $146 " $41 " $149 " $191 " $542 "2020 - 2% learning" ($76)" ($3)" ($105)" $7 " $95 " $132 " $37 " $135 " $172 " $394 "2025 - 1% learning" ($72)" ($3)" ($100)" $0 " $90 " $125 " $35 " $128 " $164 " $368 "2030 - 1% learning" ($68)" ($3)" ($95)" $0 " $86 " $0 " $33 " $122 " $156 " ($150)" $81 "2035 - 1% learning" ($65)" ($3)" ($90)" $0 " $82 " $0 " $32 " $116 " $148 " ($143)" $77 "2040 - 1% learning" ($62)" ($3)" ($86)" $0 " $78 " $0 " $30 " $110 " $141 " ($136)" $73 "2045 - 1% learning" ($59)" ($2)" ($81)" $0 " $74 " $0 " $29 " $105 " $134 " ($129)" $70 "2050 - 1% learning" ($56)" ($2)" ($77)" $0 " $70 " $0 " $27 " $100 " $127 " ($123)" $66 "

49

Fuel Cell Stack and Tank Costs"

Fuel Cell System " Fuel Cell H Tank Costs" CNG Tank Costs"

" ($/kW)" fixed" $/kgH" Fixed" $/kgCNG"Midrange" 2010" $50" $875" $469" $545" $29.1"

" 2015" " " " 2020" $40" $875" $469" $545" $29.1" " 2025" " " " 2030" $33" $791" $424" $493" $26.3" " 2035" " " " 2040" $30" $716" $383" $446" $23.8" " 2045" " " " 2050" $27" $647" $347" $403" $21.5" " " "

Optimistic" 2010" $50" $875" $469" $545" $29.1" " 2015" " " " 2020" $36" $875" $469" $545" $29.1" " 2025" " " " 2030" $27" $791" $383" $493" $23.8" " 2035" " " " 2040" $24" $716" $313" $446" $19.4" " 2045" " " " 2050" $22" $647" $283" $403" $17.6"

50

Load Reduction & ICE Costs - Cars"

" Load Reduction! ICE tech" stop/start" turbo" Waste heat recovery"

! Cost" ICE credit" (ICE/HEV"Midrange" 2010" $0 " $0" $0" $0" $0" Only)"

2015" $120 " -$47" $175" $63" $125"2020" $356 " -$94" $350" $125" $250"2025" $706 " -$142" $525" $188" $375"2030" $1,173 " -$189" $700" $250" $500"2035" $1,470 " -$208" $700" $238" $475" $50"2040" $1,809 " -$228" $700" $226" $452" $100"2045" $2,190 " -$247" $700" $215" $430" $150"2050" $2,612 " -$266" $700" $204" $409" $200" " "

Optimistic" 2010" $0 " $0" $0" $0" $0"2015" $83 " -$57" $175" $50" $125"2020" $281 " -$115" $350" $100" $250"2025" $594 " -$172" $525" $150" $375"2030" $1,023 " -$229" $700" $200" $500"2035" $1,320 " -$255" $700" $190" $475" $40"2040" $1,659 " -$280" $700" $181" $452" $80"2045" $2,040 " -$306" $700" $172" $430" $120"2050" $2,462 " -$331" $700" $164" $409" $160"

51

Load Reduction & ICE Costs - LDT"

" Light Truck - Individual costs! " "(ICE/HEV

only)" " Load reduction" waste heat" ! Cost" ICE credit" ICE tech" stop/start" turbo" recovery"

Midrange! 2010" $0 " $0" $0" $0" $0"2015" $132 " -$48" $175" $75" $125"2020" $404 " -$95" $350" $150" $250"2025" $816 " -$143" $525" $225" $375"2030" $1,367 " -$191" $700" $300" $500"2035" $1,727 " -$210" $700" $285" $475" $50"2040" $2,138 " -$229" $700" $271" $452" $100"2045" $2,599 " -$248" $700" $258" $430" $150"2050" $3,110 " -$267" $700" $245" $409" $200" " "

Optimistic! 2010" $0 " $0" $0" $0" $0"2015" $95 " -$58" $175" $63" $125"2020" $329 " -$116" $350" $125" $250"2025" $703 " -$174" $525" $188" $375"2030" $1,217 " -$233" $700" $250" $500"2035" $1,577 " -$258" $700" $238" $475" $40"2040" $1,988 " -$283" $700" $226" $452" $80"2045" $2,449 " -$307" $700" $215" $430" $120"2050" $2,960 " -$332" $700" $204" $409" $160"

52

Car Incremental Cost over Baseline:High-Production Midrange Estimates"

ICE

HEV

CNG (ICE)

PHEV

BEV

FCV

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Cars: Mid-‐Range CostsIncremental Direct Manufacturing Costs over 2010 Baseline

53

•  In the long run, both BEV (100-mile range) and fuel cell vehicles should be cheaper than conventional vehicles"

•  Even with low battery costs, PHEV always command a significant cost penalty"

Light Truck Incremental Cost over Baseline:High-Production Midrange Estimates"

ICE

HEV

CNG (ICE)

PHEV

BEV

FCV

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Light Trucks: Mid-‐Range CostsIncremental Direct Manufacturing Costs over 2010 Baseline

54

Car Incremental Cost over Baseline:High-Production Optimistic Estimates"

ICE$

HEV$

CNG$(ICE)$

PHEV$

BEV$

FCV$

$0$

$2,000$

$4,000$

$6,000$

$8,000$

$10,000$

$12,000$

$14,000$

$16,000$

$18,000$

2010$ 2015$ 2020$ 2025$ 2030$ 2035$ 2040$ 2045$ 2050$

Car:%Op(mis(c%Costs%Incremental$Direct$Manufacturing$Costs$over$2010$Baseline%

55

Light Truck Incremental Cost over Baseline:High-Production Optimistic Estimates"

ICE$

HEV$

CNG$(ICE)$

PHEV$

BEV$

FCV$

$0$

$2,000$

$4,000$

$6,000$

$8,000$

$10,000$

$12,000$

$14,000$

$16,000$

$18,000$

2010$ 2015$ 2020$ 2025$ 2030$ 2035$ 2040$ 2045$ 2050$

Light&Trucks:&Op0mis0c&Costs&Incremental$Direct$Manufacturing$Costs$over$2010$Baseline&

56

57

Vehicle Findings" !

Results May be Conservative"

§  Ricardo 2020-25 results were used for 2030 (midrange)"

§  Annual rate of reduction for losses was assumed to diminish after 2030, usually to about half of rate projected to 2030"§  Even though pace of technology innovation is accelerating"

§  Only turbocompounding was considered for waste heat recovery – and that only after 2030"

§  Radical new ICE combustion techniques with higher thermal efficiency were not considered"

58

Results May be Conservative"

§  Carbon fiber materials were not included"§  Batteries beyond lithium-ion were not considered"§  Fuel cell efficiency gains much less than

theoretically possible"§  Off-cycle improvements (e.g. AC efficiency, aux.

solar cells, cabin heat management) and vehicle operation optimization were not considered"

§  New lightweight material cost studies found much lower costs"

59

Turbo Dedicated EGR Engines

§  Highly dilute, low temperature combustion"

§  Advanced ignition systems required"

§  > 42% indicated efficiency (Alger)!

§  PSA 2018 introduction"

Terry Alger and Barrett Mangold, SwRI, Dedicated EGR, SAE 2009-01-0694 "

60

Accelerating Technology Innovation and Introduction"

§  Cost is direct manufacturing cost"§  NRC Report is Effectiveness and lmpact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, 2002"§  Draft RIA is for NHTSA/EPA proposed standards for 2017-25 light-duty vehicles"

Cars GDI Turbo 6+ speed Auto 2009 4.2% 4.5% 22% 2010 9.2% 4.4% 36% 2011 18.4% 8.6% 59% 2012 30.4% 10.4% 67%

Source: 2012 EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report – Cars only"

Technology Source Benefit Cost

Turbo‐

charging

and

downsizing

(no cyl.

reduc7on)

2001 NRC Report 5‐7% $250‐

$400

DraG RIA – 18 bar 12‐15% $342

DraG RIA – 24 bar 16‐20% $550

DraG RIA – w/

boosted EGR 20‐25% $967

4‐ to 6‐

speed

automa7c

2001 NRC Report 3‐4% $150‐

$300

DraG RIA 3‐4% ($ 15)

Automa7c

to DCT DraG RIA 4‐6%

($154‐

$223)

x 2 efficiency

New technology: x 2 efficiency

again

from cost increase to decrease

New technology: more efficient and

cheaper

Technology Source Benefit Cost

Turbo‐

charging

and

downsizing

(no cyl.

reduc7on)

2001 NRC Report 5‐7% $250‐

$400

DraG RIA – 18 bar 12‐15% $342

DraG RIA – 24 bar 16‐20% $550

DraG RIA – w/

boosted EGR 20‐25% $967

4‐ to 6‐

speed

automa7c

2001 NRC Report 3‐4% $150‐

$300

DraG RIA 3‐4% ($ 15)

Automa7c

to DCT DraG RIA 4‐6%

($154‐

$223)

x 2 efficiency

New technology: x 2 efficiency

again

from cost increase to decrease

New technology: more efficient and

cheaper

61

Hybrid System Cost Reduction"

§  Advanced P2 hybrid system: single motor, two clutches"§  Small, relatively inexpensive motor integrated into transmission"

§  Also reduces costs for clutches, lubrication, and cooling"§  Although high capital costs to redesign transmission"

§  New, higher-power Li-ion batteries: smaller, lighter, lower cost"

62

Nissan will launch the first integrated one-motor two-clutch CVT hybrid system for FWD and AWD in 2014" "

Motor and Clutch

20

MOTOR

Clutch(CL1)

Same length as conv.

Motor and Clutch are installed co-axially in the space of the torque converter. Compact clutch enables the overall powertrain length to

be equivalent to conventional vehicle.

Clutch(CL2)

§  FSV and FEV studies indicate 12-18% weight reductions at zero cost!

§  EDAG and Lotus studies indicate larger mass reductions at costs on the CARB cost trend line "

63

‐1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Incremental mass reduc.on

cost ($ / lb reduced)

Percent vehicle curb weight reduc.on

Data from research literature (confiden=al industry data not shown)

EPA/NHTSA ($4.33/lb/%)

CARB evalua=on ($2.3/lb/%)

Geck 2007

Lotus 2010

Das 2009

Cheah 2007

Plotkin 2009

Aus=n 2008

EEA 2007

AISI 1998

EEA 2007

Lotus 2010 Das 2010

Das 2008

Das 2008

Bull 2009

NAS 2010

Montalbo 2008

Aus=n 2008

AISI 2001

Lotus 2012!EDAG 2012!

FEV 2012!FSV 2012!

Vehicle Mass Reduction Cost"

The Real Technology Breakthrough"

" " "Computers"§  Computer design, computer simulations, and on-

vehicle computer controls are revolutionizing vehicles and powertrains"

§  Especially important for lightweight materials"§  Optimize hundreds of parts – size and material"§  Capture secondary weight – and cost – reductions "

§  The high losses in the internal combustion engine are an opportunity for improvement"

§  Also reducing size and cost of hybrid system"

64

Key Messages"

§  More running room for conventional technologies!§  Including hybrids, could achieve 94 mpg (56 g/km) in 2050

for U.S. fleet with midrange assumptions (cars 112 mpg or 47 g/km). "

§  Battery electrics and fuel cell cost competitive long-term"§  Li-ion battery costs drop by 80%"§  Electric drive costs scale with reduced power demand

associated with lightweight materials and other load reductions"

§  PHEVs will always command a significant cost premium and incremental fuel savings will diminish"

§  Fundamental technology breakthroughs would further increase efficiency and reduce cost"

65

Thank You"

John German ([email protected])"

transitioning to alternative vehicles and fuels: … - nas...transitioning to alternative vehicles...

Documents